Re: [PATCH 2/2] doc: git-worktree: Add side by side branch checkout example
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2025-10-02 18:07:01
Michal Suchanek [off-list ref] writes:
quoted hunk
Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <redacted> --- Documentation/git-worktree.adoc | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)diff --git a/Documentation/git-worktree.adoc b/Documentation/git-worktree.adoc index ec31863aec..122b191ff9 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-worktree.adoc +++ b/Documentation/git-worktree.adoc@@ -525,6 +525,16 @@ $ popd $ git worktree remove ../temp ------------ +Side by side branch checkouts for a repository using multiple worktrees + +------------ +mkdir some-repository +cd some-repository +git clone --bare gitforge@someforge.example.com:some-org/some-repository .git +git --git-dir=.git worktree add some-branch +git --git-dir=.git worktree add another-branch +------------
It is a good example to have a bare clone and get worktrees attached
to it, but I do not think that it is a great idea to call that bare
clone ".git". It makes it confusing if that some-repository/
directory that has a ".git" directory is a non-bare clone with no
working tree files, or if it is a directory that Git has no
knowledge about, that happens to have a single bare repository plus
worktrees. The answer is the latter, but I suspect that Git itself
would probably be confused (i.e. "cd some-repository && git status"
---if you try it, what does it say?).
Naming it after the project may make it more apparent what is going
on when the user goes into that top-level shell directory, perhaps
like this, if we were working with a "bunny" project:
mkdir bunny
cd bunny
git clone --bare gitforge@someforge.example.com:some-org/bunny bunny.git
git --git-dir=bunny.git worktree add some-branch
git --git-dir=bunny.git worktree add another-branch
Then when you "cd bunny && ls", you'd see the bare repository
bunny.git with two checkouts.
Having said all that.
I know some folks like such a layout for some (perhaps ideological)
reason (i.e. no checkout is more special than others, everybody is
equal), but I am not absolutely sure if it works better in a larger
workflow in practice than having a primary worktree that is not a
bare repository. If you do the above with a non-bare repository in
the center, it would look like this:
mkdir bunny-project
cd bunny-project
git clone gitforge@someforge.example.com:some-org/bunny main
cd main
git worktree add ../my-topic-1
git worktree add ../my-topic-2
and have my interaction with the upstream project only from inside
the primary worktree, i.e., "main". Additional worktrees are more
or less ephemeral, and can go away.
+ BUGS ---- Multiple checkout in general is still experimental, and the support